When Employers Can Seek Expense Reimbursement From Employees [e253]

February 15, 2016

Nasir and Matt discuss a rare win for California employers and when they can seek expense reimbursement for voluntary employee training.

Full Podcast Transcript

NASIR: Welcome to our podcast where we cover business in the news and add our legal twist.
My name is Nasir Pasha.

MATT: And I’m Matt Staub.

NASIR: Episode 253. This is a monumental episode. I think it’s the highest episode number we’ve ever done.

MATT: I don’t know. It could be.

NASIR: I think so.

MATT: You’re just saying that because I’m recording this from a plane, right? Physically, the highest I’ve ever been up off the ground.

NASIR: Altitude-wise, it’s the highest.

MATT: Yeah.

NASIR: Correct, exactly.

MATT: Definitely 253 is the highest number-wise because we record going up. But, yeah, I think altitude-wise, this has to be the highest. But we’ve actually evened it out because I think you said you were in Death Valley recording this so I don’t know. Who knows?

NASIR: So, two milestones, definitely put it in the books.
But, today, what are we talking about today, Matt? Give us a little taste of the topic here.

MATT: People may not have listened to this before or might not be in California or experienced any sort of business or competition in California. The general idea is any sort of restraint against competition – I’ll use the word “competition” generally not enforceable and we’ve talked about different ways where, you know, it can be considered that and with trade secrets, you know, things like that.

NASIR: Yeah.

MATT: We had a decision – and this was end of January here – that kind of changed this a little bit. Let me just get into kind of the facts behind this. I’m just going to abbreviate. UPI is how they abbreviate it but USS-POSCO Industries, they faced a vacancy in this certain type of skilled worker that they need – if someone really is interested, maintenance, technical, electrical MTE workers. Here’s what they did; they needed to find these people. It’s a highly skilled area so they needed to train these people which, generally speaking, if you have employees and you’re going to train them, you have to compensate them for that.
This program they created, 135 weeks of instruction, 90 weeks of job training, and 45 weeks of classroom work – pretty substantial. Cost was also pretty substantial; $46,000 per employee that they estimated this program cost.

NASIR: Geez.

MATT: It’s pretty significant. I mean, I think that’s higher than the median family income in San Diego last year which is crazy.
During this time, the employees still got paid their regular wages. This was kind of in addition to train them, I assume, for this higher level or more technical side of it. If they completed the program, they would be assigned to this MTE vacancy and that was that.
But the thing to keep in mind here is participation in this was voluntary because they still had their normal position, but this would be a higher skilled position where I assume they would get much higher pay than they did before. I don’t know the exact numbers but I think that’s safe to say.

NASIR: Do you know if the training was while they were working or was it outside? The reason I’m asking is because you mentioned, generally, if you’re training an employee, you have to pay them – unless, like, there’s a four-factor test, right? If it’s voluntarily, if it’s outside of regular work hours, and not directly related to the employee’s job, and that the employee doesn’t perform any productive work during that. It’s a little ambiguous about that but it seems like these guys did it during their employment and they were paid their regular wage. And so, really, the main factor we’re talking about here is that it’s voluntary. It may not have been enough to not pay them for that training time but we’re talking about something a little bit different here.

MATT: No, and that’s a good point. That’s why one of the important things to see here is that it was, in fact, voluntary and that’ll come into play later. But another thing that was voluntary for these individuals are if they voluntarily left UPI within 30 months after completing this full training, they would have to reimburse the company $30,000 of the expense of the training less $1,000 per month of subsequent service at UPI. Basically, what this company was doing was saying, “We’ll pay for the estimated $46,000 in expense it’s going to cost to train you but, if you leave within this timeframe, you’re going to have to pay a chunk of this back.”

NASIR: A max of $30,000 but then I guess it goes down each month that they’re still working there.

MATT: Right. So, the individual that’s involved in this lawsuit, he completed the program. Two months later, he resigned. And so, they said, “Well, you owe us the $20,000. That’s what you agreed to.” That’s when the whole famous 16600 B&P section of California came into play which I mentioned at the beginning of this. I broadly said non-competition but it’s more than just that.

NASIR: I’ll read you the applicable provision as you listeners at home think about for a second how this relates and see if you can kind of get the idea. The relevant part says: “Every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” And so, at first, all of you should be thinking about non-compete, right? We’ve talked about it a hundred times. In fact, we’re going to talk about non-competes this Wednesday but think about this as a non-compete provision. How does that apply to reimbursing for training? The idea is that, okay, if you have this provision that, if the employee leaves and they have to pay upwards of $30,000 then that in itself may be a restriction of trade that they’re pretty much indentured to work for their employer until that debt is basically paid off. If it’s $1,000 per month, what is $30,000 divided by 12? How many years is that? About two and a half or so?

MATT: Yeah, exactly, two and a half. That’s why it comes back to what you brought up before about the voluntary aspect of it. I guess I should get to what actually happened first. This was the appellate court. I’m trying to see if they upheld it or overturned.

NASIR: Yeah, upheld.

MATT: Okay. Surprisingly, what was held was that this employee did have to pay back the money to the employer which California employers get very few victories. They’re very few and far between. But this was a pretty surprising one and this is the appellate court so it made it through two different rounds here and that’s why I’m going to the voluntary aspect of it. I think, if it was involuntary and it was required, I don’t think they would have gotten to the same decision that they did.

NASIR: Yeah, and just to clarify, I mean, there has been cases in California that have dealt with this issue a little bit. There was one in the federal court – the federal court in California – and they still applied on California law. I think this is the most recent decision from an appellate level in California – just for the lawyers that are maybe listening, kind of getting education on that. But this is definitely significant. If you look at other states on how they’ve dealt with this, California has been one of those that, a lot of lawyers, when they draft these, they’ve always been kind of concerned if it’s being challenged and you really have to focus on how you draft it. But the same goes with these other states, too, because you can easily draft these types of what we call employee reimbursement agreements or training reimbursement agreements incorrectly in a way that’s not enforceable and one of the common mistakes is basically you make it a penalty that, if they leave early, they owe you this amount of money. This happens all the time. You have an employee, you spend all this time training them, and then they leave. That’s not quite what we’re talking about here and Matt made a good point to magnify the importance of the voluntary nature of this. But, also, there’s another component of the actual expenses So, even if it is voluntary, if there’s not actual expenses that the employer spent in order to train, then it’s going to be also hard to collect more than what the actual expenses were. Here, the estimated cost if over $46,000 per employee, yet they’re not asking for $46,000 – they’re asking for something less than that.

MATT: The agreement they had was they estimated $46,000 per employee but the most that somebody could pay was $30,000 so it wasn’t possible to get the full amount back so, basically, no matter what, the employer is saying, “You know, the idea is we’re going to train these people to do this higher level. They’re presumably going to get paid more and we’re going to make more off of it so we just kind of look at everything as a whole and think of it as a win.” I think this is a win on top of that, the fact that here’s what the court said: “Repayment of the fronted costs of a voluntarily undertaken educational program, the benefits of which transcend any specific employment and are readily transportable is not a restraint on employment.” So, going back to 16600 – that restraint language which is one of the more broad and ambiguous sections of code I can remember or I can recall off the top of my head. But, yeah, this is a win for California employers, for sure. But how much of a win is it? This is a pretty narrow scope, right? I mean, there’s a lot of different things. A lot of boxes have to be checked on this in order for this to work, I think, for the employer.

NASIR: Yeah, I think so. Also, how many times it’s going to actually come up in an actual situation is probably rare. I mean, $46,000 for training just seems… right? I mean, obviously, if you’re putting that much investment into one employee, those skills are going to be useful elsewhere and I think that’s the whole concept. “Look, I’m paying all this money and they’re going to just go across to a competitor and I’m kind of stuck with the bill. That’s not fair.”

MATT: Right.

NASIR: There’s also something in the FLSA – the Fair Labor and Standards Act, federal law – that may imply that, you know, this concept, let’s say they spent all this money, they’re getting paid their regular wage but then, a month later, they leave and now they owe all this money, one of the arguments they could have made – I don’t know if they made it in this deal – is that, well, if the employee does pay that back, then effectively they would have worked for less than minimum wage. I’m not sure if it was made in this case but there has been a case – this was actually that federal court case in 2010 in California where that argument was raised and, despite that, the court still ruled that the employee had to pay back that reimbursement.
Here’s another thing, another common mistake – sorry, I just remembered – another common mistake of these reimbursement agreements is that these employers will take it out of their final paycheck. In California, it’s a big issue. Some other states, you may be able to get away with that if you have it in writing and so forth but that’s another kind of touchy area as well.

MATT: Yes, and that was basically you running from one side of the court room to the other, arguing against yourself back and forth but that’s all good points.

NASIR: That’s true.

MATT: Either way, you win and you lose.

NASIR: I can’t remember if we talked about this but it also reminds me of liquidated damages clauses and – this is very specific – H1B worker contracts. Let me just break this down because it is relevant. So, you have these H1B visas which basically are work visas that employers sponsor. You have employees that come from overseas or from outside the country and you sponsor them but there’s some money and sometimes you pay for the attorney and sometimes you do this – all this kind of work to get that person here. The danger is you bring them here and, a month later, they quit, right? It’s like, “Okay, I spent all this time.” And so, a lot of people, what they do is they put these liquidated damages clause which aren’t dissimilar. I mean, this $30,000 issue, that’s exactly that – a liquidated damage clause basically saying that, if you terminate this contract early at this period, then you’re going to owe us this amount of money because that’s calculable to our expenses as what it’s going to be or whatever. In those cases, the courts have pretty much found something similar to these training cases that they’re pretty much tolerated. They have to be crafted properly. There are ways to mess up. But, generally, they’re acceptable.

MATT: I think you’re referring to Chamberlain V. Augustine, actually decided a hundred years ago.

NASIR: Wow.

MATT: 1916.

NASIR: Yeah, that’s exactly what I was referring to.

MATT: That was a sum of $5,000 as liquidated damages.

NASIR: I actually gave the oral argument in that case.

MATT: Yeah? Wow!

NASIR: Well, bottom line is, I mean, we get this question a lot, right? We have employees that we’ve trained. How do we make sure that they don’t leave and take their money with them?

MATT: I mean, to sum it up, I mentioned before all the different boxes that had to be checked. Just looking at this, it was a voluntary decision by the employees. It was educational benefits. The time period for kind of the payback was a defined time period. You know, that’s a lot of things to put in this sort of agreement. If you are going to do something like this, it’s got to be similar to those lines – at least according to this very fresh appellate decision that could be overturned. Who knows?

NASIR: Yeah.

MATT: I guess we’ll have to see but, for now, it’s take it while you can, I suppose.

NASIR: I think it’s the right decision. Even with that non-compete statute, I don’t think it was contemplated that the employers would be put in such a bad position. But who knows? In California, things can change overnight.

MATT: Oh, it’s just been overturned – just now.

NASIR: Oh, just in. I read it on Twitter in fact. It’s real-time. In fact, the judge actually is on Twitter. In fact, we found out even before the employer found out. That’s how he announced his ruling.

MATT: Unbelievable.

NASIR: This day and age, right? Everything’s changing.

MATT: Exactly.

NASIR: Well, I think that’s our episode for today but more non-compete stuff this week. I think that’s our theme this week, huh? Non-competes.

MATT: Yeah, President’s Day, non-compete. Two days after President’s Day, also non-compete.

NASIR: Yeah, our yearly tradition, actually.
All right, guys, thanks for joining us.

MATT: Yeah, keep it sound and keep it smart.

Legally Sound | Smart Business

By

The Podcast Where Nasir Pasha and Matt Staub cover business in the news with their legal twist and answer business legal questions that you the listener can send it to info@legallysoundsmartbusiness.com.

Get Business Legal Updates

Please provide your full name.
Please provide a valid email address.
We respect your privacy, and we will never share your information. Unsubscribe at any time.

Legally Sound Smart Business

A business podcast with a legal twist

Legally Sound Smart Business is a podcast by Pasha Law PC covering different topics in business advice and news with a legal twist with attorneys Nasir Pasha and Matt Staub.

Latest Episodes

February 4, 2021

How you terminate an employee can make the difference between a graceful transition to avoidable negative outcomes like a dramatic exit or even a lawsuit. We gathered a panel of experts and asked them – is there a “right way” to fire an employee? We would like to thank our guests for this episode: Amr…

December 2, 2020

The COVID-19 pandemic has turned nearly every aspect of life on its head, and that certainly holds true for the business world. In this episode, Matt and Nasir explain how the early days of the pandemic felt like the Wild West and how the shifting legal playing field left a lot open to interpretation and…

November 16, 2020

After plenty of ups and downs, our buyer has finally closed on the purchase of their business. While we’re marking this down in the ‘wins’ column, it never hurts to review the game tape. In this final episode, our hosts, Matt Staub and Nasir Pasha, return to the deal almost a year later to reflect…

September 15, 2020

The ink is drying on the signature line and things are looking great for our buyer. After so much hard work, the finish line is in sight and the cheering within ear shot.   Though the landlord is still serving friction, things seem safe to move forward and for now, our buyer will be keeping…

July 31, 2020

Though things are coming along well, the journey would not be interesting if it was purely smooth sailing. After our buyer opens escrow, they are forced to push the closing date back when suddenly a letter from an attorney was received claiming the business, we are buying has a trade mark on the name!  Now…

June 12, 2020

With frustration at an all-time high and professionalism at an all-time low, our friend the Buyer has “had it” with the Seller and quite frankly their lack of knowledge. At present our Buyer is rightfully concerned that the latest misstep from our loose-lipped Seller will threaten not only the entire operation of the businesses but…

May 11, 2020

As we go deeper into the buying process, we start to uncover more challenges from our seller and encounter some of the wrenches they are tossing our way. When we last left off in episode three our team was knee deep in due diligence for our buyer, had already penned and signed the Letter of…

April 4, 2020

One word–interloper! When a new mysterious broker enters the transaction and starts to kick up dust, Nasir and Matt take the reins. The seller signed off on the letter of intent (see episode 2), yet this “business broker” serves only friction and challenges by refusing to send financials, whilst demanding more of a firm commitment…

April 4, 2020

Just as most stories and deals start out, everyone is optimistic, idealistic and full of hope for clear skies. It’s a perfect outlook with a perfect setup for the ups and downs yet to come. Peek further behind the curtain and into the first steps of buying a business: the letter of intent. After the…

April 4, 2020

When a savvy buyer hears opportunity knocking to purchase a prime positioned business, she decides not to go it alone and taps in the professionals to help navigate what could potentially be a fruitful acquisition. “Behind the Buy” is a truly rare and exclusive peak into the actual process, dangers, pitfalls and achievements, that can…

August 7, 2019

GrubHub is subject to two “matters of controversy” that have likely become common knowledge to business owners: “fake” orders and unfriendly microsites.

May 28, 2019

In this podcast episode, Matt and Nasir breakdown the legal issues of the subscription industry’s business on the internet. Resources A good 50-state survey for data breach notifications as of July 2018. California Auto-Renewal Law (July 2018) Privacy Policies Law by State Why Users of Ashley Madison May Not Sue for Data Breach [e210] Ultimate…

March 12, 2019

In recording this episode’s topic on the business buying process, Matt’s metaphor, in comparing the process to getting married probably went too far, but they do resemble one another. Listen to the episode for legal advice on buying a business.

December 3, 2018

Nasir and Matt return to discuss the different options available to companies looking to raise funds through general solicitation and crowdfunding. They discuss the rules associated with the various offerings under SEC regulations and state laws, as well as more informal arrangements. The two also discuss the intriguing story about a couple who raised over…

July 24, 2018

Flight Sim Labs, a software add-on creator for flight simulators, stepped into a PR disaster and possibly some substantial legal issues when it allegedly included a Trojan horse of sorts as malware to combat pirating of its $100 Airbus A320 software. The hidden test.exe file triggered anti-virus software for good reason as it was actually…

April 17, 2018

Attorneys Matt Staub and Nasir Pasha examine Mark Zuckerberg’s congressional hearings about the state of Facebook. The two also discuss Cambridge Analytica and the series of events that led to the congressional hearings, the former and current versions of Facebook’s Terms of Service, and how businesses should be handling data privacy. Full Podcast Transcript NASIR:…

March 10, 2018

The Trump presidency has led to a major increase in ICE immigration enforcement. It’s critical for business owners to both comply with and know their rights when it comes to an ICE audit or raid. Nasir, Matt, and Pasha Law attorney Karen McConville discuss how businesses can prepare for potential ICE action and how to…

February 5, 2018

New years always bring new laws. Effective January 1, 2018, California has made general contractors jointly liable for the unpaid wages, fringe benefits, and other benefit payments of a subcontractor. Nasir and Matt discuss who the new law applies to and how this affects all tiers in the general contractor-subcontractor relationship. Click here to learn…

January 2, 2018

With a seemingly endless amount of new mattress options becoming available, it is unsurprising that the market has become increasingly aggressive. As companies invest in more innovative solutions to get in front of customers, review sites, blogs and YouTube videos have moved to the forefront of how customers are deciding on their mattresses and how…

December 7, 2017

In recent months explosive amounts of high profile allegations of sexual harassment, assault, and varying acts of inappropriate behavior have transcended every sector of our professional world. With a deluge from Hollywood and politics, and the private workforce, accusations have inundated our feeds and mass media. This harassment watershed has not only been felt within…

November 16, 2017

If you are not familiar with the EB-5 program started in 1990 to give green cards to certain qualified investors in the United States, then you may not have been alone a few years ago. Currently, the EB-5 program has since exploded since its inception and now hits its quotas consistently each year. The program…

October 10, 2017

Government requests come in multiple forms. They can come in as requests for client information or even in the form of investigating your company or your employees. Requests for Client Information General Rule to Follow Without understanding the nuances of criminal and constitutional law and having to cite Supreme Court cases, any government requests for…

August 24, 2017

Nasir and Matt suit up to talk about everything pertaining to employee dress codes. They discuss the Federal laws that govern many rules for employers, as well as state specific nuances in California and other states. The two also emphasize the difficulty in identifyingreligious expression in dress and appearance, how gender-related dress codes have evolved…

June 28, 2017

Nasir and Matt discuss the life cycle of a negative online review. They talk about how businesses should properly respond, how to determine if the review is defamatory, the options available to seek removal of the review, how to identify anonymous reviewers, whether businesses can require clients to agree not to write negative reviews, and…

June 7, 2017

On this episode of the Ultimate Legal Breakdown, Nasir and Mattbreak down social media marketing withguests Tyler Sickmeyer and Kyle Weberof Fidelitas Development. They first discuss contests and promotionsand talk about where social media promotions can go wrong,when businesses are actually running an illegal lottery, and the importance of a soundterms and conditions. Next, they…

April 3, 2017

On this episode of the Ultimate Legal Breakdown, Nasir and Matt go in depth with the subscription box business. They discuss where subscription box companies have gone wrong(4:30), the importance of a specifically tailored terms and conditions(6:30), how to structure return policies (11:45), product liability concerns (14:45),the offensive and defensive side of intellectual property (19:00),…

February 1, 2017

Nasir and Matt discuss the suit against Apple that resultedfrom a car crashed caused by the use of FaceTime while driving. They also discuss howforeseeable use of apps can increase liability for companies. Full Podcast Transcript NASIR: Hi and welcome to Legally Sound Smart Business! I’m Nasir Pasha. MATT: And I’m Matt Staub. Two attorneys…

January 5, 2017

The guys kick in the new year by first discussing Cinnabon’s portrayal of Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia soon after her death, as well as other gaffes involving Prince and David Bowie. They alsotalk about right of publicity claims companies could be held liable for based on using someone’s name or likeness for commercial gain.

December 22, 2016

Nasir and Matt discuss the recent incidentat a Victoria’s Secret store where the store manager kicked out all black women after one black woman was caught shoplifting. They then each present dueling steps businesses should take when employees are accused of harassment.

December 8, 2016

Nasir and Matt return to talk about the different types of clients that may have outstanding invoices and how businesses can convert unpaid bills to getting paid.

November 10, 2016

After a long break, Nasir and Matt are back to discuss a Milwaukee frozen custard stand that is now revising it’s English only policy for employees. The guys also discuss how similar policies could be grounds for discrimination and what employers can do to revise their policies.

October 6, 2016

The guys discuss the new California law that allows actors to request the removal of their date of birth and birthdays on their IMDB page and why they think the law won’t last. They also discuss how age discrimination claims arise for business owner.

September 29, 2016

Nasir and Matt discuss the racial discrimination claims surroundingAirbnb and how it’s handled the situation. They also discuss some practical tips for businesses experiencing similar issues.

September 8, 2016

Nasir and Matt discuss whyAmazon seller accounts are getting suspended and banned without notice and how business owners can rectify this situation through a Corrective Action Plan.

August 25, 2016

Nasir and Matt talk about the accusations surroundingfashion giant Zararipping off the designs of independent artists like Tuesday Bassen and howsmaller companies can battle the industry giants.

August 18, 2016

Nasir and Matt discuss Brave Software’s ad replacing technology that has caught the eye of almost every national newspaper and has a potential copyright infringement claim looming. They also welcome digital marketing expert Matt Michaelree to speak on the specifics of what Brave is attempting to do and whether it has the answers moving forward.

July 28, 2016

Nasir and Matt discuss the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Gretchen Carlson against Fox CEO Roger Ailes. They also talk aboutthe importance of sexual harassment training and properly handling such allegations in the office.

July 15, 2016

Nasir and Matt talk about the changes at Starbucks that have led to many disgruntled employees and customers.

June 23, 2016

Nasir and Matt discuss the criminal charges facing FedExinvolving the alleged transportation of illegal drugs. They also talk about how business owners should address working with customers that may be breaking the law.

June 15, 2016

The guys return after a long break to discuss why Yahoo is auctioning off over 3,000 patents and how this decision will affect the longevity of the company.

May 25, 2016

Nasir and Matt discuss the increase in the salary thresholdfor exempt employees and how employerscan try to avoid paying overtime as a result.

May 18, 2016

Nasir and Matt discuss the Baltimore law that makes it very difficult to operate food trucks in the city. They also discuss all the legal restrictions tohaving a food truck.

May 11, 2016

Matt listens to Nasir recap the developing battle in his hometown of Vandalia, Ohio over whether a Dunkin Donuts can move into a location in close proximity to a local favorite donut shop. They then discusswhether the issue is more legal or personal.

May 9, 2016

The guys kick off the week by discussing a Nevada employee who is claiming she was fired for not supporting the Scientology beliefs of her employer.

April 27, 2016

The guys discuss the massive floods in Houston,how employers responded, and why one meteorologist became a local hero. They also discuss the steps businesses should take in preparing for storms outside the workplace.

April 20, 2016

The guys discuss the boycott of Amazon over the products of an unnamed presidential candidate. They also talkabout how a business should handle a boycott and whether it’s possible to exit one unscathed.

April 13, 2016

Click here to read HubSpot’s response on this topic. Nasir and Matt discuss the trend in startups to compensate programmers and other early employees with stock options and how the company culture at HubSpot isn’t what it seems.

April 6, 2016

Nasir and Matt discuss various lawsuits against social media platforms in which users are accused of artificially inflating their social currency.

March 30, 2016

Nasir and Matt discuss the class action suit against Jessica Alba’s Honest Company for allegedlyselling products that contained harmful chemicals.

March 23, 2016

Nasir and Matt talk about the story out of Texas that Mexican restaurants were reportedly attempting to ban Trump supporters from eating at their restaurants.

We represent businesses.
That’s all we do.

Oh, and we love it.

We love our work. We love reviewing that lease for your new location. We thrive on closing that acquisition that nearly fell through. We’re fulfilled when we structure a business to grow, raise capital, and be legally protected.

We focus on developing close relationships with our clients by being like business partners. A partner who provides essential, personalized, proactive legal support.

We do all of this without utilizing the traditional billable hour model. You pay for the value we bring, not the time spent on calls, emails, and meetings.

Our team is made up of attorneys and staff that share these values and we are retained by clients who want the same.

Pasha Law PC operates in the states of California, Illinois, New York, and Texas.

Meet Our Team

Fractional General Counsel Services

Pasha Law Select offers the expertise of a high-end general counsel legal team for every aspect of your business at a fixed monthly rate. Pasha Law Select is deliberately designed to allow our legal team to be proactive, to anticipate, and to be comprehensive in serving our clients. To be great lawyers, we need to know our clients. We can’t know our clients unless we represent a select number of clients in the long-term. This is Pasha Law Select.

Learn More